Projet de loi portant assentiment aux Actes internationaux suivants : 1° Protocole au Traité de l'Atlantique Nord sur l'accession de la République d'Albanie, 2° Protocole au Traité de l'Atlantique Nord sur l'accession de la République de Croatie, signés à Bruxelles le 9 juillet 2008.
General information ¶
- Submitted by
-
The Senate
- Submission date
- Jan. 16, 2009
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- Albania Croatia NATO international agreement
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR
- Abstained from voting
- Groen Ecolo FN VB
Contact form ¶
Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.
Discussion ¶
Jan. 29, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Rapporteur Herman De Croo ⚙
Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will give an oral report on the approval of these two treaties in our committee on 27 January.
Currently, more countries are members of NATO than of the European Union. This, however, indicates that some of the comments in the report make it difficult to be briefly cited.
That was also the attitude of colleague Wouter De Vriendt who felt that NATO should not know that expansion and who, among other things, questioned NATO’s out of area actions.
Colleague Dirk Van der Maelen, who calls himself a cool lover of NATO – cool lovers are usually dangerous – considers that both countries, both Croatia and Albania, could have experienced a kind of path to stabilization long ago by being part of this very important international union.
The same position was expressed by colleague François-Xavier de Donnea, who noted that he had no problem with Croatia’s accession, but still asked a number of questions about Albania, including about the Albanian minorities in Macedonia and Kosovo. All together, he also found it a signal, including with regard to the major religion that is Islam, that an Islamic country like Albania would join NATO here.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I had a few questions about Croatia’s accession. These were about nationalism in this country and the conflicts that were not so long ago resolved with neighboring countries. I also asked questions in the sense of this of colleague de Donnea about Albania.
Mr. Speaker, in fine, the entire draft was adopted with eight votes against one.
We were unanimously asked to submit a verbal report, which I did with pleasure.
Wouter De Vriendt Groen ⚙
Mr. Speaker, our group will abstain on this point. We do this not because we have something against the countries in question, but because we question the role of NATO today and want to formulate the necessary questions.
It is effectively about the development of NATO, which began as a purely defensive organization, but now takes on more and more offensive tasks – including tasks that are out of area.
These are also operations whose link to a UN mandate is not always as clear. We are not in favor of a NATO that operates out of the area without a UN mandate.
We are therefore not willing to simply take part in the expansion scenario presented here today, without effectively engaging in the debate on the fundamental role of NATO today in the light of the current situation and the current challenges in the world.
Georges Dallemagne LE ⚙
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to say that we will approve this enlargement because it contributes to European stability, ⁇ in the Western Balkans, which need it. Indeed, Albania and Croatia are in a political process that we find positive, important and that we seem to have to support, including through this issue of collective security in Europe.
That said, the question of successive enlargements arises. This is the third enlargement in less than ten years. The debate is important. We must be able to be listening, in particular, to Russia’s concerns over some additional enlargements. We must not see ourselves opposed to a veto right by Russia, but we must in any case initiate a dialogue with it on its feeling of encirclement and check to what extent we can respond to Mr. Putin’s call. Putin to work on the idea of a strategic partnership between Russia and NATO.
This is one of the major issues that we will have to solve and which we will have to discuss here in the perspective of the summit that will take place in Kehl and Strasbourg in April next year, a very symbolic summit on a horse on the Franco-German border.
Other issues are also important about NATO’s structure, its means, its effectiveness. Belgium is asked to increase its contribution to NATO. This does not seem reasonable in the current state of public finances. Nevertheless, this requires additional efficiency in the means of both NATO and the necessary construction of a European defense on the issues of the integration of equipment, equipment and command. These are some of the issues that we will have to consider very soon in our Parliament in order to prepare the Belgian position for the very important summit that will take place in Strasbourg next April.